Good interview with MARC MACYOUNG
Couldn’t have put it better.
Grappling is definitely not self defence nor effective fighting. It really is just a sport.
[quote]texasguy4 wrote:
A bunch of retarded bullshit.
[/quote]
Think what you want. I figure I’ve made my point and made an ass out of you, so I’m done.
I wrestled in high school and probably could have continued in college had I one bit of sense at that age; wrestling has served me very well on the screet.I started what most people would call martial arts in full contact karate (full contact styles are the ones that do knockout tournaments), but only did that for a year before I started boxing. I’m a big believer in “if you can’t wrestle and/or box, you cant fight”. Look at MMA. The martial arts that have risen to the top of that sport(wrestling,boxing,thai,jits) are at the top for a reason. They work period. Many people feel that MMA has hurt martial arts, but in fact it demystified martial arts. Many stylists hid behind excuses for years, and wouldn’t fight. After all the delusional idiots got beat down because they practiced unrealistic arts, you can see what is left. Someone once asked Bruce Lee “how do you beat someone who has been practicing martial arts for 15 years”? Lee responded with “wrestle and box for 1 year”.
[quote]texasguy4 wrote:
edn wrote:
texasguy4 wrote:
Yes, it is difficult to compare styles at the best of times.
Traditionally, grapplers beat strikers. Mixed bag trainees are another story, mma or street.
Typically, they will go for a take down first however, and then finish with strikes.
Which goes back to my original point that grappling carries more crossover than straight striking.
That pissed Irish off and he flew off on an e-tangent that took the whole thread off context. I don’t think you and I really disagree all that much with the initial point taken.
I’m saying grapplers can strike, formal strike training aside, strikers can’t grapple. That is a big advantage/limitation.
Go for the cross over. I didn’t seperate the two. Irish did. Again, I suggested grapplers have a wider range of tools at their disposal, as one doesn’t really have to be trained in striking to be effective at it, but not so with grappling. The guy asked for one style recommendation.2 advantages are greater than 1.
And Krav Maga falls in to this idea. They do advocate strikes, but typically after a strike is neutralized by a variation of grappling. Again, grapplers can strike too.
My recommendation is still for grappling. Punching comes natural. And if you are really out to save your life, get a gun. Ethics don’t trump life.
[/quote]
Garpplers don’t go for the take down then finish with strikes - MMA people do that - grapplers grapple they don’t strike! If they want to get into MMA and learn how to “ground and pound” properly then they will cross train into some striking style to learn how to strike properly and with power. An grappler untrained in striking will do it about as effectively as a striker untrained in grappling will grapple. As for punching coming naturally - have you ever seen a fight in a kindergarten? Toddlers do what comes naturally - they grab and grapple rather than punch.
That aside it doesn’t change the basic fact that in a fight you want to be as mobile as possible and being on the floor - especially tangled up with an opponant - is the last place you want to be. It’s practically painting a target on your back/head for his friends. As a sport (if you want to) learn grappling, as a second line for self defence learn grappling as your basic self defence then learn something that will teach you to avoid or put down your man and still be mobile enough to run for it which is most definitely not pure grappling!
Your exposure to krav maga must be very different to mine. In my experience KM emphasises hard striking with grappling as a backup or for specific purposes.
Oh and thankfully sometimes ethics does come up trump or we would need a whole lot more hospitals, morgues and prisons than we already have!
Ninjitsu
“Light up the eyes!”
[quote]Kensei wrote:
Ninjitsu
“Light up the eyes!”[/quote]
Ninjitsu is real ultimate power!
Thats really interesting if thats true, have you got a source for that?
I know a complete wanker who has recently turned pro boxer. God willing his career will go nowhere, he deserves nothing, and he is often found around my local small town night club starting trouble. At new year he started a fight with a bloke I know who has no training but likes a drink and a fight (also a bit of an arsehole in my opinion), and got himself knocked out in seconds with a headbutt.
As a total noob to this I don’t know what conclusion to draw, but I thought it was interesting.
Wado Kai all the way baby. Not that popular though… (Cheap to. A year will cost ya less than $100, before gi.)
I would love to take up BJJ being a smaller guy, but there are no clubs in my area. I would recommend that to
for the OP - if you can get across the bridge and into the city easily, go to fairtex for muay thai. it’s world renowned, and has really solid instructors. 6-12 months of thai boxing is a great base to get your striking started.
from there, the ralph gracie academy is an excellent brazilian jiu-jitsu school. again, world-class instruction, and several professional MMA fighters train there.
if you can do both at once, even better.
if you’re strapped for cash, berkley probably has a judo club or class. it’s a solid and effective grappling art, and serves as a good base to move on to jiu-jitsu or wrestling later down the line if you want.
there’s also a really good boxing gym in oakland - i’ll try and remember the name to post, but you can check the yellow pages.
these are not the only four paths out there - there are lots of good arts and instructors. but they are four good arts that work well for a lot of people, both in and out of the ring.
there are tons of good instructors in the various arts in the bay area. take a look around, see what appeals to you personally, and do your research. and have fun!
[quote]edn wrote:
texasguy4 wrote:
edn wrote:
texasguy4 wrote:
Yes, it is difficult to compare styles at the best of times.
Traditionally, grapplers beat strikers. Mixed bag trainees are another story, mma or street.
Typically, they will go for a take down first however, and then finish with strikes.
Which goes back to my original point that grappling carries more crossover than straight striking.
That pissed Irish off and he flew off on an e-tangent that took the whole thread off context. I don’t think you and I really disagree all that much with the initial point taken.
I’m saying grapplers can strike, formal strike training aside, strikers can’t grapple. That is a big advantage/limitation.
Go for the cross over. I didn’t seperate the two. Irish did. Again, I suggested grapplers have a wider range of tools at their disposal, as one doesn’t really have to be trained in striking to be effective at it, but not so with grappling. The guy asked for one style recommendation.2 advantages are greater than 1.
And Krav Maga falls in to this idea. They do advocate strikes, but typically after a strike is neutralized by a variation of grappling. Again, grapplers can strike too.
My recommendation is still for grappling. Punching comes natural. And if you are really out to save your life, get a gun. Ethics don’t trump life.
Garpplers don’t go for the take down then finish with strikes - MMA people do that - grapplers grapple they don’t strike! If they want to get into MMA and learn how to “ground and pound” properly then they will cross train into some striking style to learn how to strike properly and with power. An grappler untrained in striking will do it about as effectively as a striker untrained in grappling will grapple. As for punching coming naturally - have you ever seen a fight in a kindergarten? Toddlers do what comes naturally - they grab and grapple rather than punch.
That aside it doesn’t change the basic fact that in a fight you want to be as mobile as possible and being on the floor - especially tangled up with an opponant - is the last place you want to be. It’s practically painting a target on your back/head for his friends. As a sport (if you want to) learn grappling, as a second line for self defence learn grappling as your basic self defence then learn something that will teach you to avoid or put down your man and still be mobile enough to run for it which is most definitely not pure grappling!
Your exposure to krav maga must be very different to mine. In my experience KM emphasises hard striking with grappling as a backup or for specific purposes.
Oh and thankfully sometimes ethics does come up trump or we would need a whole lot more hospitals, morgues and prisons than we already have![/quote]
Again, Irish seperated grappling/striking, not me. I mentioned grappling in my first post and implied that it carries more crossover opportunities in real world self defense situations as striking isn’t all that difficult with out training. Grapplers can strike should they choose, and in a real world situation they would, along with grappling. THey wouldn’t necessarily go for an arm bar, but they would absolutely go for take downs, where they would control the fight on the ground, and then beat the piss out of their attacker who would be like a fish out of water against a guy trained to fight on the ground.
The OP wanted one art, i gave him grappling with that limitation as a recommendation. I don’t contest that a mixed bag is best. I was merely answering the question posed and gave my reason to the OP. Then I e argued Irish’s angry reply becuase he’s a douche and it’s fun.
Take it for what you will.
[quote]texasguy4 wrote:
edn wrote:
texasguy4 wrote:
edn wrote:
texasguy4 wrote:
Again, Irish seperated grappling/striking, not me. I mentioned grappling in my first post and implied that it carries more crossover opportunities in real world self defense situations as striking isn’t all that difficult with out training. Grapplers can strike should they choose, and in a real world situation they would, along with grappling. THey wouldn’t necessarily go for an arm bar, but they would absolutely go for take downs, where they would control the fight on the ground, and then beat the piss out of their attacker who would be like a fish out of water against a guy trained to fight on the ground.
The OP wanted one art, i gave him grappling with that limitation as a recommendation. I don’t contest that a mixed bag is best. I was merely answering the question posed and gave my reason to the OP. Then I e argued Irish’s angry reply becuase he’s a douche and it’s fun.
Take it for what you will. [/quote]
Unfortunately the premise of your argument is incorrect - solid striking is just as difficult without training as solid grappling. Arguably more so as it is less natural for humans. You also haven’t addressed the issue that going to the ground in a fight is borderline suicidal as it makes you a spectacularly easy target for your opponants friends or anyone standing around who wants to take a shot. As a first line of defence in the real world grappling isn’t that great - as a back up to solid striking it’s great - but get your striking down first as it will be likely much more usefull and effective.